SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 179, 5 January 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, Jan. 4. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Gresson.] [The following is the continuation of our report from the time of going to press yesterday.] INDECENT ASSAULT. Alexander Clark was charged with ind'» cently assaulting James Preece on December 6th, i§74. t The prisoner pleaded “ Not guilty.’ Mr B. Button was chosen foreman of the petty jury. The evidence in this case was also unfit for publication. His Honor having summed up, the jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty,” His Honor deferred passing sentence, as another charge against prisoner was pending. GRAND JURY PRESENTMENT. The Grand Jury having learned from your Honor’s address to them that this is the last sessions of ihe Supreme Court in Canterbury at which your Honor will preside as Judge, desire in 1 now taking' leave of your Honor for the last time to express their high sense of the manner in which you have always upheld the dignity of the Court under

your presidency during the long period of seventeen years, and of the uniform courtesy and consideration which they as Grand Jurors have experienced at your hands in the discharge of their duties. The Grand Jury would also take this opportunity of giving expression to their admiration of the patience and forbearance which your Honor has ever exercised in carrying out the administration of this Court, an administration which has secured for your Honor the esteem and respect of the inhabitants of this province, - , . They regret that the building, of the Supreme Court, the necessity of which your Honor has so often urged upon the authorities of this province, and in which you have ever taken so great an interest, has not been completed during your Honor’s tenure of office. In conclusion, the Grand Jury would express the hope that in vacating this judgeship your Honor’s connection with the province will not be thereby severed, H. P. Mubkay-Atnslby, Foreman. Tuesday, January 5. > w [Before his Honor Mr. Justice Gressqu-] The sitting of the Court Waa resumed at 10 a.m. this day. LARCENY FROM THE PERSON. George William Price was indicted for having on the 23rd October last stolen one watch and chain from one Thomas Clarence Barrett. The prisoner pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Dr Foster appeared to defend the prisoner. Mr B. Button was chosen foreman of the petty jury. * The facts of the case as given in evidence are as follows :—On the day mentioned in the indictment the prosecutor and prisoner were in the Golden Age Hotel. The prosecutor was then rather the worse for liquor, and was wearing a watch and chain. The landlord of the hotel told the prosecutor that he had better go home, as he had had enough. The prosecutor went to th§ door of the hotel with the intention of going home, When the prisoner came up to him and said he would see him home, They then left in company, and the landlord of the hotel saw them going together as far as Brice’s verandah, opposite the Bank of New Zealand, The prosecutor afterwards returned to the Golden Age Hotel, bht without his watch and chaw. Nothing more was heard of the watch and' chain until Hie 16th November last, when the prisoner was arrested by detective Feast in Cohen’s pawn-office, where he had been endeavoring to dispose of it to Cohen, who, knowing the watch and chain to be stolen, had detained the prisoner until 'the- arrival of the police, Detective Feast then took him ,to the Golden Age Hotel, where he waaredbgnined by Mr Allen, the landlord* 3 s the mum who was with Barret, the on the night the watch Wft* stolen. In support of the indictment, Mr Dqnpap called Chief Deteptive Feast, who deposed tq the arrest of the prisoner ; Win; Suton, to whom the watch belonged, having sent it tq Christchurch to be repairpdi identified the watch produced as his, he having given the prosecutor authority to bring the watch from Christchurch to the station where he was employed. • ‘ ' Henry Allen, the landlord of the Golden Age Hotel, gave evidence confirmatory of the facts above stated. , Sigmund Cohen, who deposed to the prisoner offering to pawn the chain, but said also that he saw the watch in the possession of the prosecutor one week prior to the 16th November. The prosecutor also gave evidence as to being in the Goldon Age on the evening in question and leaving the hotel with a man, but he would not swear that the prisoner was the man. In cross-examination by Dr Foster, the prosecutor stated that he had been drinking at most or many of the public houses in Christchurch daring the day he lost his watch. He was in the Golden Age Hotel just before he lost his wateh, about a quarter of an hour striving with all his might to get a single “ nip. Between the time of leaving the Gpldep Age and returning, soitfe man was fingering the chain of the watch, worn by top- wither aqd he remarked to him that fye hsd better leave it alone. The man yvas the same that had left the Golden Age with him. Mr Duncan addressed the jury for the prosecution, contending s3* the Crown had made out tlie case. ' < Dr Foster, contra, pointed oulj that the witness Coheu had stated that he had seen the watch in the possession of the prosecutor one week prior to the date on which theprisoner came to him to pawn the chain. This was on the 16th November, and the watch was said to have been stolen on the 23rd October. If they believed must at once see that end of the case, so far Che prisoner was concerned. As regarded' the witnesses Allen and Cohen, he "thought they were entitled to the best thanks of the Court and jury for the manner in which they had acted throughout! in fact, their conduct did them infinite credit. Dr Foster then proceeded to address the jury in mitigation, stating that if they found the prisoner guilty, they ought through the testimonials handed up to his Honor from the’prisoner’s employers in London to recommend him to mercy. * ;L His Honor summed up to the jury, concurring in the enconiums passed by Dr Foster on the conduct of Mr Allen and Mr Cohen, and read the several testimonials given to the prisoner in London on the occasion of his emigrating to the colony, which were highly satisfactory. The jury, after a short retirement, returned into Court with a verdict of “ Guilty,” with a recommendation to mercy. His Honor enquired upon what grounds? The foreman said upon the ground of his previous excellent character. His Honor said he would pass a very light sentence on the prisoner, an accordance with the recommendation of the jury, And in the hope that it would prove a warning; The sentence would be three iuonth»l impi;iao||ment, with hard labour; **' ' * ! ’ SODOMY* Alexander Clark was ’indicted ‘for having in the month of November last, committed this crime. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “Not guilty.” ‘ The evidence is unfit for publication. Mr M. M. Wyatt ’Was chosen foreman of the petty jury. 4 TJ The jury returned a verdict of “^Guilty.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to ten years’ penal servitude on this ’ charge, and three years’ penal servitude on that of which he was ‘ found * guilty yesterday, mating thirteen years’ penal servitude.